Property is Liberty, and Regulation Is Theft

[there4eyeM]

Property is liberty? Both are words, meaning concepts. 'Property' refers to material reality. Liberty refers purely to concept. Equating the two represents the ultimate level of materialism.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Property is liberty? Both are words, meaning concepts. 'Property' refers to material reality. Liberty refers purely to concept. Equating the two represents the ultimate level of materialism.

Liberty and the ability to own private property go hand in hand

 

[G.T.]

Who owns Earth?

 

[there4eyeM]

Then, being rich enough to deny ownership to others is denying liberty.

 

[Auld Phart]

Everything is 'theft' to the RWnuts. It's hilarious.

When the government can take the land you own or the house you live in at any time what do you call it?

I call it democracy. The People, right or wrong, gave the government that power.

and, of course, the government NEVER overreaches it's authority, does it?

 

[there4eyeM]

Power corrupts, and monopolies corrupt absolutely.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Then, being rich enough to deny ownership to others is denying liberty.

It is obvious why you didn't provide any examples of same.

 

[there4eyeM]

That would be insulting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Power corrupts, and monopolies corrupt absolutely.

The government in our time is a monopoly.

This has been true since the 32nd President.

 

[Camp]

Everything is 'theft' to the RWnuts. It's hilarious.

When the government can take the land you own or the house you live in at any time what do you call it?

I call it democracy. The People, right or wrong, gave the government that power.

We'll see of you feel that way when the government tells you it's taking your home and paying you pennies on the dollar for it leaving you with a huge mortgage balance to pay off

When and where did that happen? Pennies on the dollar instead of fair market value after a legal process and a public hearing? Maybe you have an example of the government getting private property for pennies on the dollar.

 

[there4eyeM]

re: #29
In some ways.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. In "From Poverty to Prosperity: Intangible Assets, Hidden Liabilities and The Lasting Triumph over Scarcity," by Arnold Kling and Nick Schulz, we learn what accounts for the differences between countries with similar populations or geographies. The authors chalk it up to a kind of "software" that encourages entrepreneurship and growth: property rights, the rule of law, a government that isn't too intrusive.



7. Yet, our nation has gradually moved away from the liberty and freedom represented by the sanctity of private property.

"More than anything else, a new political economic mythology, widely believed by too many people, has increased government's ability to interfere as it does in the marketplace. Profit is a dirty word, blamed for most of our social ills. In the interest of something called consumerism, free enterprise is becoming far less free. Property rights are being reduced, and even eliminated, in the name of environmental protection. …

...profit, property rights and freedom are inseparable, and you cannot have the third unless you continue to be entitled to the first two." http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=1978&month=01


Yet, there are those would 'fundamentally transform' our nation into one where the government assumes the right to all of its citizen's private property....

....and dopes shout 'good idea!!!'

 

[PoliticalChic]

That would be insulting.

This would be obfuscation.

Your post was nonsense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Regulation of property is Constitutional, and the OP's statement reveals that PC is suffering a breakdown again.

 

[Camp]

7. Yet, our nation has gradually moved away from the liberty and freedom represented by the sanctity of private property.

It hasn't been gradual. Your concept was rejected by the writers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Your concept was rejected as the country formed. It was a known concept and was purposely left out and rejected. You yourself explain it in your OP.

 

[PoliticalChic]

re: #29
In some ways.

This requires a fuller explanation.

It was the Constitution that prevented the tyranny....the government becoming a monopoly.

1. Justice James McReynolds, for instance, announcing from the bench in 1935 his dissent from Court decisions upholding President Franklin Roosevelt’s orders taking the federal government off the gold standard, famously uttered extemporaneously a line not found in his written opinion: “The Constitution, as we have known it, is gone.” Remarks of Philip B. Perlman, Solicitor General of the United States, at Proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in Memory of Mr. Justice McReynolds, 334 U.S. v, x (Mar. 31, 1948).

2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation.

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Yet, our nation has gradually moved away from the liberty and freedom represented by the sanctity of private property.

It hasn't been gradual. Your concept was rejected by the writers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Your concept was rejected as the country formed. It was a known concept and was purposely left out and rejected. You yourself explain it in your OP.

Of course, that is your stock in trade: lies.


The Founders envisioned a nation based on liberty, and memorialized same in the Constitution.

It is based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.....and was until Franklin Roosevelt attached our nation to the Soviet communism of Joseph Stalin.

 

[Camp]

re: #29
In some ways.

This requires a fuller explanation.

It was the Constitution that prevented the tyranny....the government becoming a monopoly.

1. Justice James McReynolds, for instance, announcing from the bench in 1935 his dissent from Court decisions upholding President Franklin Roosevelt’s orders taking the federal government off the gold standard, famously uttered extemporaneously a line not found in his written opinion: “The Constitution, as we have known it, is gone.” Remarks of Philip B. Perlman, Solicitor General of the United States, at Proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in Memory of Mr. Justice McReynolds, 334 U.S. v, x (Mar. 31, 1948).

2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation.

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If the words of Justice McReynolds were not written in his opinion they have no meaning and in reality. legally have no weight and do not exist. If he didn't have the courage to write those words down, they are meaningless.

The Guffey-Vinson coal bill was rewritten and approved by the SCOTUS. Laws have always passed in Congress only to be knocked down by court rulings. That is why we have courts. It still goes on to this very day. It is how our government works.

 

[PoliticalChic]

re: #29
In some ways.

This requires a fuller explanation.

It was the Constitution that prevented the tyranny....the government becoming a monopoly.

1. Justice James McReynolds, for instance, announcing from the bench in 1935 his dissent from Court decisions upholding President Franklin Roosevelt’s orders taking the federal government off the gold standard, famously uttered extemporaneously a line not found in his written opinion: “The Constitution, as we have known it, is gone.” Remarks of Philip B. Perlman, Solicitor General of the United States, at Proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in Memory of Mr. Justice McReynolds, 334 U.S. v, x (Mar. 31, 1948).

2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation.

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If the words of Justice McReynolds were not written in his opinion they have no meaning and in reality. legally have no weight and do not exist. If he didn't have the courage to write those words down, they are meaningless.

The Guffey-Vinson coal bill was rewritten and approved by the SCOTUS. Laws have always passed in Congress only to be knocked down by court rulings. That is why we have courts. It still goes on to this very day. It is how our government works.

He said it.

He was correct.

You're still a lying, anti-America low-life.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

IF the title of the OP, "Property is Liberty, and Regulation is Theft" is to be considered and argued as truth and a pillar of 'Conservatism', then the conservatives supporting that proposition would have to be directly condemning at least one portion of the Constitution as thievery and unlawful theft.

Note the precise wording of Article I, § 8, Cls 3 which states one of the enumerated powers of Congress:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

The Founders determined that power to regulate commerce uniformly a very necessary power to curb the former excesses of the several States under the Articles of Confederation imposing immoderate and punitive sanctions, tariffs and excises, on the commerce of other States. That obviously made trade more expensive for all concerned, which impacted everyone negatively, and created barriers.

Therefore, if the offered proposition of the OP's title is true then the Founders were in error to some measurable degree in their construction of the Constitution. However, if the Founders were correct in bestowing that power upon Congress to regulate commerce to avoid those petty and very costly equivalents of 'theft' by the several States, the idea that moderate regulation may just be necessary can be sustained within certain logical and proper bounds.

Just one man's opinion on the general proposition of sweeping declarations lacking considerations of the scope of the totality of impacts. The mileage for others may vary, of course!